Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Rockland Development Associates v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2005

15 A.D.3d 381; 790 N.Y.S.2d 169; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1339

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Berry v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Village of Haverstraw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Village of Haverstraw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Bridge Public Relations & Consulting, Inc. v. Hylan Electrical Contracting, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Came Realty, LLC v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
City of New York v. Your Dream Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
American Building Supply Corp. v. Avalon Properties, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated August 13, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, is in its favor and against the defendant in the principal sum of only $134,250.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To improve a portion of Route 59 in Rockland County, the defendant, State of New York, appropriated approximately 15,395 square feet of a parcel belonging to the claimant, Rockland Development Associates. Further, part of the parcel was subject to a temporary easement while the construction on Route 59 was completed.

The Court of Claims providently adopted the defendant’s appraiser’s assessment of consequential damages flowing from the taking in fee (cf. Matter of CNG Transmission Corp., 273 AD2d 726, 728 [2000] [within court’s broad discretion to accept or reject expert testimony in determining the value of condemned property]). The court’s findings were well within the range of values of the competing appraisals and should be affirmed, as the claimant has failed to establish any ground that would require this Court to increase the award for consequential dam*382ages to the subject property (see Gold-Mark 35 Assoc. v State of New York, 210 AD2d 377, 379 [1994]).

Moreover, the court’s finding as to damages for the temporary easement appropriated by the defendant was supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed (see Village of Highland Falls v State of New York, 44 NY2d 505, 507 [1978]; Matter of County of Nassau [Minkin], 148 AD2d 533, 534 [1989]).

The claimant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.E, Crane, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.